China's military budget is like tasty mouse meat for the 'hawks' in Washington
I'm going to begin this diatribe by pointing out straight off the top that I find China's military spending ridiculous. Any country which still claims the title of "developing" should in no way be spending some 417.8 billion Yuan (57.2 billion USD) in 2008 (official figures) on a military that does virtually nothing. And there is absolutely no reason why China should be maintaining a military with over 2 million soldiers, particularly given that China engages in minimal peace keeping exercises for the United Nations and - aside from shoveling snow and playing soldier games with countries like India and Russia - spends most of its time marching down the sidewalks and 'protecting' government buildings. If the CPC really wanted to prove that it was engaging in a 'peaceful rise,' it would actually be cutting spending on it's military rather than increasing it 17.6 percent in 2008. That said, I find the latest report out from the Pentagon regarding China's military spending equally hypocritical on a number of fronts.
The United States Military budget request for this year was 481.4 billion USD. This doesn't even include war requests. Even if you add up China's hidden military costs (China's official budget for military spending does not include moneys for nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and fighter jets which falls under the space/science development and training which falls under the education budget) China would still be spending about 4 to 7 times less than the US does (depending on how the numbers come out in the wash, and depending on which source you look at). This is the obvious stat that the Chinese government leans on whenever it is criticized by the United States. And I say fair enough. Why should the United States maintain the monopoly on military spending? I don't think it should be China trying to close the gap for the reasons stated in the first paragraph, but why does the US government feel that it can complain when another country wants to spend more on its military? I find this particularly frustrating and hypocritical.
The other point I would like to argue is that the Pentagon, in my mind, has lost a lot of credibility over the last few years in a number of different areas when it comes to global assessments. The first, and most obvious miscalculation, is the war in Iraq. Who can forget US President Bush in 2003 landing on that aircraft carrier and telling the world that it was 'mission accomplished' in Iraq. 
Don't think he would have done that if his top brass hadn't told him that they had things in control. The Pentagon also reallocated troops in Afghanistan to Iraq, which eventually led to a resurgence in the Taliban movement. Thanks to this, it's now up to the Canadian military to try to clean up the mess in that country. And the Pentagon, when it comes to China's military spending, could well be playing to its own interests. In 2004-2005, the US Department of Defense estimated that China was spending some 90 billion US dollars that year on its military. However, the RAND Corporation came out with a report which stated that China's military spending was likely half that figure (though still above official Chinese statistics). It is statistics like this that make me believe that the Pentagon is extracting the highest-possible figures for the 'hidden' Chinese military costs, and passing them off to lawmakers as a reason to get its own budget increased.
China's military spending makes for good press. Let's face it. China's international reputation has a pretty muddy and checkered past and present. But what I find just as frustrating is that the hawkish elements in the Pentagon appear to be capitalizing on US lawmakers' naivety and cold-war mentality about China to support their own interests, and that very little critical analysis is done by the media into these official government reports. Though, I suppose in the final analysis, if China wants to curtail the hawks in Washington, it should look first at getting its own PR house in order.
Categories
China , United States0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: China's military budget is like tasty mouse meat for the 'hawks' in Washington.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.zhongnanhaiblog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/264
You are totally wrong about "a military that does virtually nothing". This military power is doing a very important and valuable job: Keeping 1.3 billion people under control and keep the CPC in power for ever. That is a great job, and needs to be done. The PLA is just the force to do so.
Paul,
"particularly given that China engages in minimal peace keeping exercises for the United Nations"
Before open your mouth and make a speech, please do some homework.
Tim,
You are totally right about what this military power is doing, which is a very important and valuable job: Keeping 6.3 billion people under control and keep the US as their master for ever. That is a great job, and needs to be done.
@CC:
I would like to ask you what you consider a significant contribution to UN Peacekeeping efforts. Because here's some statistics to back up my contention. China has the world's largest standing military, with some 2,250,000 troops available. As of January this year, according to the United Nations, China had 1,963 military personell (including troops, observers and police) in active duty for UN operations. Compare that to a country like Jordan, with a total population of just under 6 million people, which had 3,582 troops on active UN duty in January. And if you want to compare by population to China, the country closest in population, India, had 9,376 UN troops on duty around the world in January, yet only has 1,414,000 active troops. So, as the statistics seem to show, comparativly speaking, China plays a minimal role in peacekeeping. In fact, China's extremely poor neighbor to the south, Bangladesh, had 9,853 troops on active UN duty in January. So please don't accuse me of not doing my homework.
@Tim: This government has always considered itself as mandated by the people, AKA: The Chinese people want the CPC in power. So if it so beloved, why does it need 2.25 million active troops to keep 1.3 billion people in line?
Paul,
Sorry, my accusation might be wrong. You did you homework perhaps. However, I don't think your argument supports your claim that "China engages in MINIMAL peace keeping exercises for the United Nations". Here is my reasoning:
The sort of per capita game is nice. I am just wondering if you will be consistent with regard to all China related issues or only use some sort of convenient measures which suit your particular claim/statement.
For example, You said that "I find China's military spending ridiculous". What about military spending per capita, following your sort of per capita logic? Are you playing the per capita or total figure game here? Be consistent.
The United States and its close allies spend more than the rest of the world combined, accounting for 63% of all military spending. Together they spend over thirty times more than the seven "rogue states". Are Jordan, India, China and Bangladesh included in that 63%?
Moreover, you said that "And there is absolutely no reason why China should be maintaining a military with over 2 million soldiers,". Really?
Again, using your reasoning, what about military personnel per capita? What about the number of military personnel in relation to the size of the country?
India is 1/3 of China in terms of territory. Using your figures, India has "1,414,000 active troops", whereas China has "2,250,000 troops available". You do the math here please and tell me why "there is ABSOLUTELY NO reason why China should be maintaining a military with over 2 million soldiers".
Further, I would like to know your figures with respect to the other four permanent members of the UN security council? Are their contribution of peace keeping troops minimal, or "minimaler"?
Having said the above, by the measure you refer, i.e. peace keeping personnel/active troops, China's contribution looks certainly smaller than the countries you named. However, is that a MINIMAL contribution? Also is that the appropriate measure?
(A side thought, I am just wondering if Bangladesh is financing its peace keeping troops or is being financed by the UN? I could be wrong in this case as I didn't do any research.)
All I am saying is, China's contribution to UN peace keeping activities may be small in comparison, depending on which measure you use, but certainly not minimal, again in comparison. More importantly, there must be consistency in your argument, which is, unfortunately, not existent in the speech you made earlier.
@Tim: The US has always considered itself as mandated by the people of the world, AKA: The people of this world want the US in power. So if it so beloved, why does the US currently (2003) owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories? To keep 6.3 billion people in line?
@cc:
You raise some very valid points here. And yes, there is always an argument, one way or the other, when you start using numbers to back up contentions. However, I want to back away from the math game for a moment and just touch on a couple of reasons why China's military spending and military size are out of step with today's reality. Of the P5 nations, China -- as I alluded to -- is the only one that maintains the distinction of being 'developing.' As such, is it wise for a 'developing' nation to maintain the world's largest active military, particularly when the country has not faced an imminent threat since before the end of the cold war? And in that same vein, should India -- which also maintains the 'developing' distinction -- maintain a military of 1,414,000 troops? My arguement is no. However, India can at least make the arguement that it has an on going conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir.
Meanwhile, China continues to spend undisclosed amounts of monies increasing its long-range ballistic missile stockpiles. Now, I don't believe there's any reason why China should have to disclose to anyone where or how it spends its money on its military. But I have to wonder, again, with no imminent threat against its borders, why it is spending significant amounts of cash on hardware that is more than likely going to sit around and collect dust for the next 15 years.
At any rate, the main thrust of the original post was not to rail against China's military spending, but to point out the hypocracy of the Pentagon for -- in my mind at least -- using China's military spending practices as an excuse to try to bolster its own resources. It's the hawkish elements that use these figures that we are debating to increase military spending on 'perceived' threats. And just ask the former Soviet Union how well these types of military build-ups work when it comes to economic health!
Thanks a lot for the comments. I'm always pleased to engage in geo-political debates.
Paul,
"I want to back away from the math game for a moment and just touch on a couple of reasons why China's military spending and military size are out of step with today's reality."
You may back away from the math game, but I don't think you can effectively back away from the figures, especially when you want to convince people that "China's military spending and military size are out of step with today's reality."
To do that, I suppose you will have to tell people what are their military size and military spending, and more importantly, as you said, what is today's reality?
The size of the military and spending have to be considered in the context of population, territory, economic development, geo-political environment and technological development, etc. Without using the context, it is pointless to discuss whether the military and military spending of a country is too large or not.
"Of the P5 nations, China -- as I alluded to -- is the only one that maintains the distinction of being 'developing.' "
Whether China is a "developing" country or not is not decided by you or me. It is determined by two variables: the economic reality and the standard with regard to "developing"/"developed".
As far as I know, GDP per capita is the widely recognized measure. According to this measure, China's figure is certainly in the range of "developing" countries, even when the PPP figure is applied.
You, and many others, argue that because China's economy is so big now, it is not "developing" anymore. Well, again, you have to be consistent(and not to use double standard). You can choose to use either total GDP or GDP per capita of a nation to measure its "development", but you cannot use one measure for some nations and the other for some other countries.
To make it specific, if you argue that China is a "developed", or at least not a "developing" country, because its economy is the fourth largest in the world, then certainly India and many other countries with a sizable population are not qualified for using the word "developing" anymore either. I find it absurd personally.
It will be more absurd if you consider many small economies will be regarded as "developing" or even "primitive developing" if you are consistent with your stardard, i.e. total GDP is the measure of development. For example, Luxembourg ranks 68th in the world in terms of GDP total(exchange rate), and 99th if PPP is used. I don't think I need tell you their per capita figure. According to your logic, Luxembourg is "developing" or at least no way near being "developed". You may ask 10 people(randomly) on the street about what they think of the above statement. Look at their reactions.
"As such, is it wise for a 'developing' nation to maintain the world's largest active military, ".
Well, wise or not, you have to put that into context, or "today's reality" as you said. Ideally, China, developing or not, should spend little on maintaining its military, largest or not. However, nothing is ideal, what is "today's reality"?
According to you, "particularly when the country has not faced an imminent threat since before the end of the cold war?".
How do you define the word "threat" and its existence? A threat has to be felt, right? I know you will argue that the Chinese are just creating/imagining a threat that is nonexistent. Again, please be consistent, do not use double standard.
To quote what I said earlier, "why does the US currently (2003) owns or rents 702 overseas (military) bases in about 130 countries and has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories"?
Is any country in this world threatening the US? Please don't mention Ben Laden. The US is not the first, the last or the only country which has suffered terrorist attack. Last time I checked, I didn't find any country, except the US, which has invaded two nations, changed their governments and has been maintaining an military occupation since 2001.
One of the key reasons China need to maintain a large military and spending is well know, Taiwan, which is another big topic.
You also have to realize that part of the reason that China's military is so large is related to its lagged technological development in comparison with others such as the rest of the P5. Man power can be used as a compensation for technological difference. As a result, holding other variables constant, a country which has inferior technology usually has to maintain a larger military, in comparison.
Finally, I am not sure if you are aware of the fact that Chinese military and its spending as a whole suffered a significant setback in the 1980s. Deng Xiaoping cut the size of Chinese military by 1 million (or something similar) and significantly reduced China's defense budget, in exchange for more resources diverted to economical development. Remember, the Chinese economy was much much smaller in the 1980s. As a result, it is not a surprise to see some double digits growth of military spending in recent years, considering two factors: firs, the Chinese defense budget was very small when the double digit increase started; second, the Chinese economy has been growing dramatically over the same period. In fact(if I am not wrong), the increase of revenue exceeds the increase of the defense budget. There is some simple math.
I am fully aware of the original intention of your post, and I agree with you. Unfortunately, you have started your argument with some not-so-reasonable (in my opinion) claims about China's peace keeping contribution, the size of the Chinese military and its spending.
I do not expect to change your opinion with my argument either, but at least I would like to provide a depiction of the other side of the coin, which, unsurprisingly, hardly finds its place in the "mainstream and objective" media in the west.
Paul,
Maybe you would like to have a look at this.
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/gary_hart_lynne_cheney_and_war.php
Hi
Here are some facts. You decide which one is hilarious and should be afraid of:
Total Troops
1. China = 2,2 Million active personnels
2. US = 1,4 Million active personnels and 1,4 reserve personnels
Population
1. China = 1,300 Million
2. US = 303 Million
Military stations
1. China = In china own teritory only
2. US = over 820 installations in at least 39 countries including iraq n afghanistan (No wonder, they're "the World Policemen")
Last 10 years military activity:
1. China = threatening Taiwan only, which claimed as one of the chinese province
2. US military:
Invasion of Iraq
Invasion of Afghanistan
Next maybe your country who doesn't agreed with US.
Military Budget:
1. China = USD 59 Billion for 2,2 Million Troops
2. US = USD 549 Billion for 1,4 Million Troops
Which one is hilarious, you decide it.